The Pussy Generation

at

clinteastwoodcat

Clint Eastwood and weak-willed friend

Squee!

Esquire magazine: “Your characters have become touchstones in the culture, whether it’s Reagan invoking “Make my day” or now [Donald[ Trump … I swear he’s even practiced your scowl.”

Clint Eastwood: “
Maybe. But he’s onto something, because secretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist. And then when I did Gran Torino, (2008) even my associate said, ‘This is a really good script, but it’s politically incorrect’ And I said, ‘Good. Let me read it tonight.’ The next morning, I came in and I threw it on his desk and I said, ‘We’re starting this immediately.’

ESQ: “What is the “pussy generation”?”

CE: “All these people that say, “Oh, you can’t do that, and you can’t do this, and you can’t say that.” I guess it’s just the times.”

ESQ:” What do you think Trump is onto?”

CE: “What Trump is onto is he’s just saying what’s on his mind. And sometimes it’s not so good. And sometimes it’s … I mean, I can understand where he’s coming from, but I don’t always agree with it.”

ESQ:” So you’re not endorsing him?”

CE: “I haven’t endorsed anybody. I haven’t talked to Trump. I haven’t talked to anybody. You know, he’s a racist now because he’s talked about this judge. And yeah, it’s a dumb thing to say. I mean, to predicate your opinion on the fact that the guy was born to Mexican parents or something. He’s said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides. But everybody—the press and everybody’s going, “Oh, well, that’s racist,” and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it. Just fucking get over it. It’s a sad time in history.”

[Later]

ESQ: “What do you think of Hillary?”

CE: What about her? I mean, it’s a tough voice to listen to for four years. It could be a tough one. If she’s just gonna follow what we’ve been doing, then I wouldn’t be for her.

ESQ: “But if the choice is between her and Trump, what do you do?”

CE: “That’s a tough one, isn’t it? I’d have to go for Trump … you know, ’cause she’s declared that she’s gonna follow in Obama’s footsteps. There’s been just too much funny business on both sides of the aisle. She’s made a lot of dough out of being a politician. I gave up dough to be a politician. I’m sure that Ronald Reagan gave up dough to be a politician.”

Clint Eastwood yells at cloud. weighs in on The Donald and The Hill in an interview with his son Scott for Esquire and calls out an entire generation of cat lovers..

Clint and Scott Eastwood: No Holds Barred in Their First Interview Together (Esquire)

Pic: Corbis

215 thoughts on “The Pussy Generation

    1. ALisonT

      Yea have to agree- if you don’t show full respect to people who choose to follow a military leader who claims he got messages from god to support his victories and losses you are a racist and Islamophobic. Adults who follow Muhammad should be challenged just as we see fit to challenge the LRA and followers of Joseph Kony. Muhammad is not comparable with Jesus, Buddha or the Dali lama, he was a man of violence.

      1. Cup of tea anyone?

        I think God brought more suffering to people then Mohammad.
        Should we challenge all who follow God?

        1. ALisonT

          If you think it was god who brought that suffering then yes you should challenge it. It is widely accepted that Muhammad was a military leader who killed a lot of people.

  1. Starina

    howdy, i’m a rich white fella and i don’t like y’all yung’uns tellin me my views are outdated. gonna go shout at a chair now.

  2. Eoin

    Yeah. He’s got a point. I just read another article about how the entire social justice ‘movement’ in the US has given rise to Trump. I guess when the left wing goes so far left that they start burning books and banning free speech, like those on the far right do (but for different reasons), you are going to get a backlash. Also Trump seems to be universally hated by the media and establishment. Look at that nuclear bomb story over the last few days. It’s looking like it was completely made up. He’s so despised by the establishment it’s almost endearing.

      1. Sido

        The so called SJW movement. (See people banned from speaking on university campuses in the UK and US

        Social media – Twitter and Facebook (particularly in Germany)

        1. pedeyw

          That’s not banning of free speech. You have a right to say and think what you want. You don’t have the automatic right to a platform to broadcast your ideas. Nobody does.

          1. Sido

            @ pedewye Its just that well, a small group of people get to decide what you say. Decide what can and can’t be discussed in these academic establishments. Essentially establishments which by definition should be considering all manner of ideas.
            That’s to say ban people whose views they don’t agree with from speaking.
            No you’re right that’s not banning free speech. – well done

          2. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

            Universities are full of over-privileged, white, middle class luvvies anyway, so who cares?

          3. MoyestWithExcitement

            “Its just that well, a small group of people get to decide what you say”

            No, they just decide you don’t get to say it in their neighbourhood. That was a rather poor display of reading comprehension, deary. Although, it was a great display of the right wing victim mentality where anyone who doesn’t tell you you’re special is out to get you so they cancel each other out.

        2. Vote Rep #1

          So nobody is banning free speech, instead there is just a reaction to what you say when people disagree with it?

          1. Mark Dennehy

            No, you’re just confusing the right to free speech with the duty of others to listen to you and publish your comments. The former exists in most western countries, to one extent or another. The latter has never existed anywhere.

    1. Cillian Delaney

      It would be endearing if he stood for anything other than the ruins of unlimited privilege. I’d bet he couldn’t even name the entire list of NATO countries. The vast majority of his businesses have achieved mediocre success at best and, in many cases, have been bankrupt numerous times.
      Again and again, he has been shown to be a man with completely inconsistent opinions from one month to the next on almost every issue. The fact that progressive people are standing up for minorities and allowing greater equality to citizens is a good thing. To call this “far left” ideology is a political mischaracterisation. In Europe, this is simply centrist politics, reasonable and considerate.

      As far as Clint Eastwood is concerned… he would probably support Donald Duck if he were running as Republican candidate for President. They are both quacks anyway #lol

    2. ahjayzis

      So basically we should all live obediently under the ‘nice’ racist, misogynistic right-wingers – because to campaign for what you believe in, to change things, you’ll encourage the slightly worse version of that which you’re opposed to. Right.

      If the radical left gave rise to the extremist right, what gave rise to the radical left? How far back do you want to go to condemn people campaigning their values? If George Washington hadn’t….

      1. Sido

        We need to stop people who don’t except your view of society, wherever they are. They are clearly a threat to civilisation as we know it. Stop thick people from voting , they always vote for ***** anyway.
        You’re so ******* clever.
        Seriously?

        1. ahjayzis

          Right….

          Opposing ideas and arguing same are the definition of democracy. It’s actually pretty healthy and I’ve no interest in your idea that we’d all get along better if we just all agree with you. You’re arguing I’m being militant for somehow not immediately capitulating to your worldview, that somehow your opponents are responsible for problems on YOUR side, because YOUR side elected an insane leader.

          Just summing up your pathetically nonsensical little whine.

    3. Bobby

      Far left are not in control anywhere, never really have been. There’s also practically no left in the US. In fact, I’d bet most people have absolutely no idea what a left wing activist is, just what they’ve seen on the Internets.

      I think the real problem is that people are thick and don’t have a complex understanding of anything.

  3. Sido

    @ Starina
    >”howdy, i’m a rich white fella”

    Interesting that you should choose to refer to him by his race. If he had bee a rich black fella would your attitude be different and why?

    1. Starina

      don’t play a fool. there are plenty of papers and articles and discussions out there about historical power balances between races and genders.

      1. Sido

        A question you can’t answer – about a statement you made – and I’m the fool? – amazing!
        You wrote it FFS – you should be able to justify it, I’m not on about power balances or papers or articles. Why do you deem his race significant that’s the question here?

        1. pedeyw

          Rich white men have historically held most of the power in the west. So a rich old white man complaining that an opinion he holds might be considered racist in this day and age is really not a surprise.

        2. Starina

          I don’t owe you a justification, i have better things to do than explain again and again to people who won’t be educated anyway

        3. Sido

          No you’re right starina you don’t owe me an explanation – I completely except your right to type your bigoted nonsense all over the place – have at it.

      2. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

        Starina right into the heart of the matter there. Nice one.

    2. ahjayzis

      Referring to a racist’s race which happens to have been the dominant race of the country up until very recently in an election where race and racial discrimination/violence is firmly on the ticket and in an atmosphere where race and racism have rarely been discussed more? The absolute NOTION of it.

      He’s the angry white man’s candidate, writ large, with the backing of the KKK’s David Duke, every republican who’s sung the praises of voter suppression, and you think we shouldn’t mention race? Idiocy or trolling?

      1. rotide

        White people are still the dominant race in the US and always will be.

        I’m talking pure numbers here, not civil rights etc.

    3. ahjayzis

      If he had been a rich black fella who thinks Mexican’s are all crooks and rapists, Muslims should be banned, disabled people are objects of mimicry, women are subhuman, yeah probably.

      Is a racist’s race irrelevant when discussing the racist?

    4. Nigel

      Mr Eastwood referred to race. Complaining about how stuff that’s racist now usen’t to be racist, which rather misses the point by a mile.

      1. Sido

        Bodger’s quoting him out of context, to give the house half wits on here, chance to vent their spleen. Read the article for yourself.

        1. Nigel

          I checked the context, it didn’t change much except the added tag of distancing himself slightly from Trump’s worse excesses, which is what about 80-90% of his supporters do before going on to support him vociferously. It’s a rhetorical device to give the illusion that you’re not defending the indefensible but then defending it anyway.

  4. Tony

    Its Newtonian. Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. So the taunting of men for their privilege, the scattergun screaming and shaming accusations of mysogyny, homophobia, racism etc at anyone who speaks anyway different to the liberal orthodoxy is getting a backlash. And the shape of that backlash ain’t purty.

    1. Niamh

      Yeah, try take unfair and unwarranted power from a privileged group and they generally protest. South Africa, post-Peace Process ‘took our fleg’ NI, poor disgruntled Anglo-Irish following the Land War, Catholic Church in the face of marriage equality, and Old Rich White Dude not being permitted to say ‘gook’ with impunity anymore.

      Truly the struggle is heroic.

  5. Barry the Hatchet

    “When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist. ” I mean.. yes. But also segregation, widespread disenfranchisement, and lynching were totally cool. So, you know. Context is important.

    1. nellyb

      are you talking to me days, i’ll smash your face days, that broad looks nice days… he’s a walking history

  6. MoyestWithExcitement

    ‘Waaaah. I can’t say really offensive things about people without getting judged anymore. I’m a victim!’

      1. Cup of tea anyone?

        I dont think you fully understood the tone of Moyests comment. That or you are too eager to call moyest an idiot.

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          I probably said he was stupid once, in fairness. In my defence though, I present you with all of his posts.

  7. Sido

    Bodger you monkey – you are quoting him out of context.
    The next question asks –
    “ESQ: What do you think Trump is onto?

    CE: What Trump is onto is he’s just saying what’s on his mind. And sometimes it’s not so good. And sometimes it’s … I mean, I can understand where he’s coming from, but I don’t always agree with it.

    1. Andyourpointiswhatexactly?

      He’s saying what’s on his mind. It’s a pity it’s not a great mind.
      Hillary has a smart brain. I really don’t like her, though. She’s Machiavellian.

      1. Neilo

        @Andyour…. Sometimes there’s the need for a light spritz of the ol’ Machiavel. If this is Clinton’s thing, it could be an interesting four/eight years.

        1. Sido

          Like her plan to rid Syria of Assad? One of her first priorities, so I read. And a boost for her neo-con backers who will do well in the murderous instability this causes.
          Of course Putin might not agree and he’s still got a load of nukes but Hillary it seems is willing to step up to the plate and show us what spineless cowards Barry and John (Mr. Ed) Kerry are.
          Its not the sort of interest I crave but breaking the glass ceiling by starting a conflict with the Russians seems to impress most of the people on here.

    2. Nigel

      Speaking his mind. A combination of verbal and mental incontinence and deep emotional immaturity. And s many of the things he says turn out to be wrong and/or lies. People are working very hard to convince themselves it’s a virtue.

  8. Jess

    Trump is not politically correct, or factually correct. In fact he has quite a tenuous grip on reality all together.

    Oh and Clint, they probably weren’t racist when you were growing up because you grew up before the civil rights era.

    1. realPolithicks

      Not to mention that he’s white and therefore didn’t suffer from the racism of this period.

  9. Deluded

    I think that people are standing up to the bullies and the bullies are upset. They can no longer deflect from their own anxieties and insecurities by belittling others.

  10. 15 cents

    My friends often accuse me of being racist, which is such a strong accusation to casually throw at someone who’s not racist. I was telling a story recently which involved a black dude, and it was pertinent to the story that he was black. Each time i said “a black guy..” in the story, i could see people wincing, like saying ‘black’ is now racist.

    1. ivan

      True story, a propos of nothing

      Few years ago in London, meself and a few friends went to see a stage performance of Arsenic and Old Lace; it was to feature Stephen Tomkinson (playing, Mortimer, the Cary Grant role) along with Kramer from Seinfeld (before *his* racism furore) and Mavis from Coronation St.

      Anyhoo, we rock up to the theatre and there are signs around saying that due to illness, Stephen Tompkinson won’t be performing today and that the part of Mortimer will be played by Mr Tomkinson’s understudy. On we go into the performance and it’s a great play, y’know, and Mr Tomkinson’s understudy performs admirably. For those of you that don’t know the story, essentially Mortimer is this relatively normal chap living with two aunts and a mad uncle, and the aunts appear to be killing off the guests that stay in their B&B. As the play goes on, Mortimer wonders if he’s going to turn into a complete and utter psychopath as well…

      however, (and because the movie is from the 40s, this isn’t really a spoiler) at the denouement of the play, it emerges that everything is OK because, see, Mortimer was adopted and isn’t a blood relative of the rest of the killers in the family.

      ALL OF WHICH WOULD’VE BEEN FINE except that Mr Tomkinson’s understudy was black.

    2. Niamh

      I don’t know, fiddy. Maybe you should check yourself just a tiny, tiny bit: I have to say, my friends don’t ‘often’ accuse me of being something pretty reprehensible. If people keep calling you a racist that’s kind of odd. Are you perhaps, by any chance…kind of being a bit racist?

      Black was pertinent to the story in what way? Context is everything, really.

      If you’re comfortable with being called racist enough never to examine why it is people are calling you a racist and simply object to being corrected, you might be a racist.

      Sorry.

      1. ahjayzis

        *Hypothesizing* – maybe the black guy robbed something and so it was pertinent because everyone just knows black people rob things and sure aren’t they only over for de welfare?

      2. rotide

        Niamh, read the story above if you cannot somehow dredge up the imagination that someones skin color might be pertinant to a story.

        In fact, every time you use the phrase ‘check yourself’ , try stopping, closing your eyes and using that education that you got from your white privilegde you are so guilty about.

        1. Walter-Ego

          Black is not a racist word. Black Power was proclaimed by many men and women i admire throughout history. Martin Luther King, Mohammed Ali, James Brown, Rosa Parks etc.

  11. Eoin

    Well in the US currently, the people out campaigning for minority rights, transgender rights etc. are preventing debate because they view an entire perspective on these subjects as ‘hate speech’. In other words if you are opposed then you are a hate monger and no longer have a right to an opinion that matters. How’s that any different to the far rights attitude? And this is why you now have Trump getting undeserved support. This utter mess of an election with it’s insane candidates was an inevitable consequence of pandering to a ‘pussy generation’. I mean, the Pentagon is shaping up for war with either China or Russia currently, the US economy is in utter fantasy land and you got students protesting about micro aggressions.

      1. Andyourpointiswhatexactly?

        Heh. That’s a good question.
        On that point, I read an interview with Rupert Everett saying that when he was a child he wanted to be a girl. Dressed up as one, pranced around and acted like one. His parents let him off, but he said it was just a stage and if they had enabled him to go the full hog, it would have been quite wrong (for him, obv). Interesting perspective.

    1. ahjayzis

      “Well in the US currently, the people out campaigning for minority rights, transgender rights etc. are preventing debate because they view an entire perspective on these subjects as ‘hate speech’.”

      What is hate speech then? Does it exist? Is it all just PC rubbish and every single opinion is just another rational perspective?

      Insinuating trans people are pedophiles is pretty hateful.
      Reserving civil rights for yourself and denying them to me isn’t a perspective, it’s an attack.
      There’s no calm debate possible with someone actively and targettedly suppressing black and minority votes, on purpose. There’s no compromise possible there. It’s not a case of “Okay, I understand you want less black people voting, but what say we only remove HALF from the electoral roles?”

      The Republicans have been attacking – not debating – attacking minorities of all kinds for years, and you’re saying the solution is to lie down and try to calmly talk to a rabid dog with it’s legislative jaws around your neck.

      You’re demanding a level of supine cowardice from the left, as somehow the way to defeat the most rabid right wing seen in decades?

      1. Tony

        “What is hate speech then? Does it exist? Is it all just PC rubbish and every single opinion is just another rational perspective?”

        yes.

    2. Bobby

      All campaigners are silencing freedom os speech is it? Never heard a right wing yank say things like that anyway..

  12. some old queen

    There are reasons why Trump is so popular and most of it is reactionary. He clearly is not fit for purpose but has managed to capture the disillusionment that many feel. I hope and pray that he does not win but, he certainly is shaking things up.

    As for Eastwood, he is right of course. The use of the word ‘Racist’ is getting silly now. It is being used in the most inappropriate contexts and as a tool to silence people on a range of non related issues.

    1. 15 cents

      true. the word ‘racism’ is used as an umbrella term nowadays. people call you a racist so casually as well, for the smallest non-racist comment, someone will label you racist which is really insulting when you arent racist.

      1. Niamh

        Again. People never call me racist. Weird. Maybe I’m missing out on something here. But they simply never appear to interpret anything I said as racist. Because I’m not racist.

        Trump is ascending because people are generally monumentally self-interested, stupid, and immature. I mean, just look at 15 cents here.

        1. Bobby

          Niamh, people don’t even realise it sadly. Amazing how as soon as racism, sexism etc are starting to get challenged, everyone is ‘not racist’ and ‘not sexist’. Loads of my old mates are adament that they’re not sexist, but are actually pretty disgustingly sexist when it comes down to it.

          Because of my experiences around people who feel the need to remind everyone they’re not racist or sexist or whatever, when after a decade or so of working of myself and still harbouring some pretty harsh prejudices, I don’t believe them. Funnily enough, I’ve never been called a racist myself. Hmm..

    2. Bob

      Conversely though, the “the word racist is being misused too much” argument is also being used to defend actual racism. It’s a vicious (and moronic) circle.

      1. MoyestWithExcitement

        + lots

        “the word racist is being misused too much” is an argument that is used too much.

      2. some old queen

        And that is the point. The word has become such a common currency that it is nearly devoid of any real meaning.

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          The argument ‘that’s not racist, that word is used too much’ is also so common that it’s meaningless. It’s generally used to defend actual racism.

  13. Eoin

    Perspective? For example if you believe that there are only two genders and refuse to accept a third.

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          LOL. Like you know anything about mortgages or job interviews or anything that happens in interactions with actual non computer generated people.

      1. Nigel

        Well, if it’s purely an article of faith, part of your religion, then it’s your right to be utterly fecking stupid and horrible.

        1. rotide

          So its alright to say ‘I’m an as yet undocumented fourth gender and would like to be addressed as such’ but not ‘I’m the undocumented son of god’?

          Extreme examples obviously, but I’m sensing some hyprocrisy

          1. Nigel

            Generation after generation of people have come and gone claiming to be children of God. There was some trouble, mostly with other people claiming to be children of another God, or the same God interpreted differently, but in general it was seen as ‘alright.’ I believe it’s very unlikely that you would be, eg, elected as president of the US if you didn’t claim to be a child of God in some fashion. Some of my best friends claim to be children of God and I get on fine with them and they, in fact, get on fine with trans people and don’t react with aggressive ignorant skepticism at the very idea of their existence. Not sure where the hypocrisy is.

          2. rotide

            I’m not sure where anyone claiming to be the son of god was ever alright. David Icke could probably tell you all about that.

            I guess what I was getting at was that it’s fine for someone to identify as whaytever gender they want but catholics for example take a fair amount of heat around these parts.

          3. MoyestWithExcitement

            Are you saying that thinking you’re a woman despite having a penis is the same as believing you’re the son of an invisible magic man who’ll never die?

          4. Nigel

            I’m sorry, I’m not sure what rule book says that because I defend trans people from particular types of criticism I must therefore be against all types of criticism of all types of groups or individuals ever else I’m a hypocrite. If your hypocridar is detecting hypocrisy at that level of magnification, it’s might be because you have incorrectly identified the principles involved.

          5. rotide

            You are defending one set of people from critisicm about how they feel and not another set for how they feel.

            Pretty straightforward no?

          6. Nigel

            Overgeneralised, abstracted and decontextualised to the point of meaninglessness, but otherwise spot on!

          7. Nigel

            Having said that, there are plenty of grounds on which I’d defend Catholics, including the right to be a Catholic, or to be religious. Nothing I respect more than the desire to find something that makes sense in a chaotic universe, and I actually despise ‘you and your invisible sky fairy’ nonsense. Atheists can be real arseholes.

    1. ahjayzis

      I believe there are four genders and Male isn’t one of them – presumably you’re okay with choosing one of the four I’ve laid out for you?

      OR how about we agree to disagree and each do what we want so long as we’re not hurting anyone?

      Only one side is legislating the choice of the other side away Eoin. Only one side ever reaches into bedrooms and bathrooms, it’s not a matter of perspective then.

      1. dan

        I actually do gh ink the word ‘gender’ is very badly misused to mean sex and/or sexual orientation.
        That’s purely semantics, but I think semantics matter here.

    2. pedeyw

      Well personally I’m on Jambon’s side. I haven’t heard an argument against such things that doesn’t eventually boil down to “because I don’t like it”. Well suck it up. It doesn’t really affect you other than grossing you out.

  14. Eoin

    Many in the US would argue that anyone with common sense and a basic understanding of biology would deny a third gender. You cannot conjure up changes to biology to suit society’s wants. Now that’s a fairly common enough, middle of the road perspective in the US, with regards transgender rights. But that’s a position of hate, right? So even a fairly common attitude will get you labelled a homophobe, Nazi etc. Hence Trump.

    1. ahjayzis

      Many in the US have a problem with terminology then. Gender and Sex aren’t the same thing.

      From wiki;
      “Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine. So while your sex as male or female is a biological fact that is the same in any culture, what that sex means in terms of your gender role as a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ in society can be quite different cross culturally.”

      1. rotide

        I think most people on the planet that aren’t involved in transgender rights would have a problem with terminolgy then.

        Maybe I’m an old stick in the mud but the definitions you quoted are new to me and while interesting, these redefinitions are hardly front page news

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          “I think most people on the planet that aren’t involved in transgender rights would have a problem with terminolgy then.”

          You’d be wrong. It’s common practice amongst stupid people to convince themselves that most people agree with their stupid opinions and beliefs and that in itself justifies the stupid opinios and beliefs. The alternative, actual independent and critical thought is too difficult for you.

          1. rotide

            I have no problem professing my ignorance on topics and I genuinely didn’t know the difference between sex and gender. I see the logic of it, but I just wasn’t aware of it. I’m certainly not alone in it though.

            Keep calling me stupid though and prove the original point of the thread.

          2. MoyestWithExcitement

            “I have no problem professing my ignorance…I’m certainly not alone in it though.”

            That’s grand, except for when you use your own ignorance as an argument against something. You read that there’s more than 2 genders and you respond with a sneery comment that ‘most people who aren’t involved in trans rights would have a problem with that.’ In other words ‘I don’t like it and most people would agree with me and that makes it ok not to like it.’ It’s the arguing strategy of a child.

            “Keep calling me stupid though”

            You’re a fountain of really stupid utterances* often hilariously in an attempt to belittle someone for having an opinion you don’t like, so I’ll definitely be continuing.

          3. rotide

            No sonny, Ahjayzis said that people in the US have a problem with terminology.

            I said that MOST people not familiar with transgender rights (which is a lot of people, probably most people) would have a problem with terminology.

            Can you read?

          4. MoyestWithExcitement

            “I think most people on the planet that aren’t involved in transgender rights would have a problem with terminolgy then.”

            That’s what you said you baffling simpleton. See the hyperbole in *on the planet* and sneering tone in *not involved in trans rights*? That’s you, firstly, sneering and secondly elevating yourself over others, something you do frequently. You’re too dumb to realise people would notice. That makes you amusing to me.

          5. rotide

            What exactly is sneering about ‘not involved with transgender rights’?

            There is nothing hyperbolic about ‘most people on the planet’ either.

            We’re talking about a fairly specialised topic here, one in which the vast majority of people have no real knowledge of.

            You might lace every post with venom, but not everyone else does.

          6. MoyestWithExcitement

            “What exactly is sneering about ‘not involved with transgender rights’?”

            You’re implying that the only people who wouldn’t “have a problem” with extra gender terms are people who directly work for transgender rights. That, along with ‘on the planet’ part and the fact you copied his sentence structure indicates the usual sneery tone in your posts. Also, you are positioning yourself as part of the majority in order to belittle. You do that a lot. Perrhaps you have real problems interpreting and processing emotions though and I’m wrong, but I doubt it.

            “There is nothing hyperbolic about ‘most people on the planet’ either.”

            Then you must not know what the word means.

          7. rotide

            I’m not implying anything. I’m outright stating it.

            you are picking up on the term ‘have a problem with’ which wasn’t my term, as you said I mirrored that.

            Anway, ill go back to ignoring you.

        2. Nigel

          Having a problem with the terminology is fine, it’s complex and the distinctions can be subtle, but it’s also tricky and sensitive, and I’m not sure why lay-people should be subjected to demands to justify medical definitions or terminology or treatments or conditions in this one narrow area where in other areas they would accept that the experts know what they’re talking about ad either learn about it or live and let live, as it does not effect their daily lives.

        3. ahjayzis

          It’s not that complicated. I’m no trans expert but the way I see it gender, as in the perceived ‘normal’ characteristics and roles of a male or a female, is a social construct.

          What a man or woman are today isn’t what a man or woman was 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 50,000 years ago when I think we can agree the ideas were far more rigid and defined.

          It’s only logical that as the barriers came down between them, some would feel free to reject both.

    2. jambon

      What is it to you what a person wants to, or feels the need to, identify as? Again, what does it cost you, other than your entrenched conservatism?

    3. Nigel

      It’s one of the meanest, most pointlessly cruel and offhandedly bullying things in modern discourse. But oh, yeah, SJWs are the real bullies.

  15. MoyestWithExcitement

    What gender is someone who has both male and female genitals then? And why can’t you press the reply button when you’re in a conversation with someone, like everyone else does?

  16. Eoin

    I kid you not. I’ve only just noticed the ‘reply’ button. I don’t know how to work forums properly at all. Anyway. In answer to your question, what do you call someone with both male and female genitals? They don’t exist. Unless they’ve had body modification. Then they are a woman or a man with body mods. If they were born with both organs, then they are a man or woman born with extra organs. Not a new gender. Anyway. I’ve never heard of anyone born with fully operational male and female reproductive systems. So can we just stick to reality here and not introduce hypothetical scenarios?

    1. ahjayzis

      Oh.

      You might not be a mad right-winger, just completely ignorant.

      Maybe do some reading, Eoin.

    2. MoyestWithExcitement

      “Anyway. In answer to your question, what do you call someone with both male and female genitals? They don’t exist.”

      Yes they do. http://science.jrank.org/pages/3310/Hermaphrodite-Hermaphrodism-in-humans.html

      “So can we just stick to reality here and not introduce hypothetical scenarios?”

      We are not talking hypotheticals as you can see in the link. Anyway, why does it bother you? What do *you* actually have to *do* when someone says they are a third gender? What if everyone refused to accept the name Eoin exists and called you something else?

      1. Eoin

        It even says it in your own link ‘True hermaphroditic humans do not exist’. What you are talking people born with atrophied extra bits. That’s a mutation, not a new gender. I’m sure these people are keen to get surgery to fix their issues and do not identify as a new gender.

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          “but pseudohermaphrodism does, where an individual has both male and female external genital organs, sometimes at the same time”

          So what gender is that person?

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          You mean the sentence that ends “but pseudohermaphrodism does, where an individual has both male and female external genital organs, sometimes at the same time.”? Yes, why?

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            I’m counting the bit that says there are humans with both male and female genitals seeing as the original question I asked was “What gender is someone who has both male and female genitals then?”. Is there anything else you’re unclear on?

          2. Andyourpointiswhatexactly?

            I think a true hermaphrodite has functioning male and female genitalia. The emphasis is on functioning, not having both.

            Either way, I’m a fan of live and let live so I’m not arguing with you on the basic point.

          3. MoyestWithExcitement

            “I think a true hermaphrodite has functioning male and female genitalia”

            I never used the word ‘hermaphrodite’ but ok.

          4. Andyourpointiswhatexactly?

            Oh right. As Mr Andy says, I’m fond of arguing with a point never made.

  17. Eoin

    Wow. There is no such thing as a human hermaphrodite (I even Googled it). You know, ignorance can also come in the form of believing in things that don’t exist. And what’s worse is being critical of others for not believing in your nonsense.

    1. Nigel

      Oh dear God. All of medical science must conform to Eoin’s preconceptions about issues around trans individuals can be legitimised. Why the hell don’t you look properly into the issue rather than making half-arsed demands to satisfy rhetorical questions that frame the issue in a hostile, belligerent fashion, an approach that makes absolutely no sense as an approach to any medical issue, like MY understanding is that appendixes are things you find at the back of books so WHY do you need to perform surgery to remove them?’

  18. MoyestWithExcitement

    Hit the reply button, please. It’s just basic manners. Although the fact you’re been presented with links to scientific articles about the existence of humans with both male and female genitals and you’re STILL saying they don’t exist says an awful lot about your childish stubbornness.

      1. MoyestWithExcitement

        For whatever reason, you’ve reminded me of the following video. The first 10 seconds is enough. I’ll never stop being amazed about how wrong I was about grown ups when I was a young’un. So many ignorant gobdaws struggling to recollect a vague memory of a blurb they read somewhere and presenting it to folk as their own learned opinion…or worse; fact.

      2. Tony

        Rookie mistake in fairness. Could happen to a bishop. G’wan the hermaphrodites and all who champion their cause!

  19. Tony

    People have called me racist, mysoginist, homophobic and a paedophile on this site. if there is such a thing as hate speech, this would be it. However, all those who called me these names were doing it in the name of good, as is the way with SJW’s. So blinded by their own righteousness that they have become the monsters they purport to be at war with. It’s like colonists have to believe the colonised are savages in order to justify the brutality they use to subject them to their ways. I find both Trump and Hilary objectionable, but either way it’s an issue that has to be addressed before this coddled generation grow up.

    1. Andyourpointiswhatexactly?

      Some American guy interviewed by John Sopel on the BBC said he has a choice between a witch and a buffoon. You can’t argue with that. As Sopel said, a lot of Americans are faced with a dilemma, not a choice.

    2. MoyestWithExcitement

      “People have called me racist, mysoginist, homophobic”

      Only yesterday you were letting gay people know they’re abnormal. So what this is really about is insecure little no marks like you crying that people are standuing up to your bullying.

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          You said you don’t want to be part of a world were heterosexuals are not referred to as normal, the direct implication of that is you think gay people are ABnormal. You’re a bully with chronically low self esteem and you’re crying about being a victim because people call out your bullying instead of feeling as bad about themselves as you clearly do.

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            :D Translation; ‘I know you are but what am I?’ Poor, bitter widdle Trollny.

          2. MoyestWithExcitement

            Translation ;Yes you are. Yes you ARE TIMES INFINITY, NO TAKESIES BACKSIES!!

            Just so you know, Trollny, that’s a common arguing tactic for kids with their friends. Friends are real life people who choose to spend their free time with you. Nobody expects you to understand the concept though so don’t worry of you’re having trouble with it.

      1. rotide

        I obviously missed that fun yesterday but in the interests of more fun, gay people are actually ‘abnormal’ by the definition of the word normal.

        As are red heads, left handed people and social democrat voters.

        Nothing wrong with it, just not the norm.

        1. ahjayzis

          It’s a pejorative term though, when used on any individual for any reason really, one you’d not think to use to classify a child without Downs Syndrome or a person who isn’t disabled, or a differentiating between a blonde and a redhead you’d just met.

          You could argue on a population level, as in “all gays” or whatever that it’s less insulting, but then it’s completely inaccurate – it is utterly normal, expected and unremarkable to find in any sizable population of humans a few of them are gay, ginger, or whatever else.

          Diversity is a very normal attribute of our species. Ideas of ‘norms’ and the perceived straying beyond them are the usual preludes to any great discrimination or violence against a group in history.

          Words matter, and I’d not be hanging around while the person who called me abnormal collected their teeth to hear why it’s a perfectly reasonable thing to call me.

          1. rotide

            for the record, I completely agree with you Ahjayzis. I wouldn’t go around accusing people of being ‘abnormal’ when ‘normal’ is such a fluid thing in a diverse society.

            If i did call a leftie abnormal, not a single eyebrow would be raised nor pearl clutched, because lefties were never subject to the same persecution that other minorities are. If I called you abnormal for the same reasons, you’d subject me to the same physical violence for societies crimes, not mine?

          2. ahjayzis

            ” If I called you abnormal for the same reasons, you’d subject me to the same physical violence for societies crimes, not mine?”

            I’m not sure what you’re asking me here? There’s nothing wrong with calling someone’s political views abnormal or worse.

    3. Nigel

      ‘If there’s such a thing as hate speech’- – there’s is so much that you have to ignore or dismiss in order to make this statement, it’s like saying ‘if there’s a sun in the sky then the moon would be it.’

      1. Tony

        The term is brand new. Just a phrase that has been coined to name one of the many new sins SJWs need to justify their hate.

        1. Nigel

          Yeah. Noting out there that could possibly qualify as hate-speech except calling something hate-speech, which is the real hate-speech. Personally, I don’t need to justify hating misogyny, racism, homophobia or transphobia, any more than I need to hate rubbish dumped by the side of the road. Can you justify not hating them? Can you justify pretending them doesn’t exist in order to attack the people who do hate them?

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            And a notably selective breeder. Anyone that reluctantly says yes being his main turn on.

        2. ahjayzis

          Gravitational waves is a new term. But they’ve existed as long as anything has existed.

          Hate speech might not have been in common parlance in 1930’s Germany, doesn’t mean no one was speaking any hate.

  20. Neilo

    In a just world, speech that’s beyond the pale might merit a smack on the chops but ours is not a just world.

  21. some old queen

    My aunt worked hard to ensure all her five children received a third level education. After a Christmas she concluded that it was entirely possible you could be educated into stupidity.

    She was a smart woman.

    The discussion to the nth degree on gender identification on this thread is deflection at its best and what is way more worrying is that those involved didn’t even realise. Absolutely devoid from how most people think.

    Complete nonsense.

Comments are closed.